After seeing a rerun of
Family Guy the other night in which Peter goes on a 5 minute rant about why
The Godfather sucks, I was prompted to re-evaluate a movie that pretty much everyone I know thinks is a masterpiece. I wrote an essay on
Platoon for my English class last semester and somehow I managed to lose it, which is why I'm not going to post the whole thing. However, I can still summarize my feelings on the movie and why I refuse to crown it as the masterpiece of wartime commentary that a lot of people seem to think it is. For the essay I wrote, I was asked to compare fantasy and reality, and write about which one I thought was "better." I wasn't asked to do it in those words, but that was essentially the theme. I decided to write about the movie
Platoon because it is a fantasy film that has a foundation built on probably the most polarizing and painful conflict in our nations history aside from whoever spent the day arguing about whether to cancel or keep The Chevy Chase show on the air.
Many people aren't aware of the fact that Oliver Stone (the films director for those who by some kind of complete fluke didn’t know) was a Vietnam Vet and supposedly a lot of what
Platoon's screenplay was based on, dealt with things he experienced during his tour of duty. Oliver was even wounded twice in battle, so there is no doubt in my mind that he is a credible storyteller for this kind of topic. Before I go into the movie itself, I have to explain further what I meant by my comment about the movie being a fantasy. All of the characters and events are fictional, and pretty much the only thing in the movie that isn't fiction is the historical backdrop. That’s ok, because a war movie doesn't have to be like
Band Of Brothers to have a point. That aspect of the fantasy I can support 100 percent, but it is other aspects of it that I can't.
With
Platoon, Oliver Stone was trying to portray the psychological effects that war has on the average combat soldier. It also depicted the many inner conflicts prevalent among groups of soldiers as well. There were soldiers who were completely apathetic to what we (we as in The United States) were doing over there, and there were also soldiers who supported the war and believed that we were there with good intentions. There were also soldiers who believed so much in what we were doing that they were willing to do whatever it took to end the war, even if it involved committing war atrocities. Those are prevailing conflicts among soldiers in probably every war, but obviously the massive upheaval surrounding The Vietnam War concerned whether or not we should even be there in the first place (another prevailing theme found in any sort of modern conflict.)
Platoon is very successful in how it deals with many of the inner struggles Vietnam soldiers faced on a daily basis but where Oliver Stone ultimately fucks up is the "hollywood, ultra-dramatic" parts he throws into the movie, specifically the scene where the soldiers burn down a Vietnamese village.
Also, Willem Dafoe's monologue about how "America has been kicking everyone's ass for so long, it's about time we got ours kicked" is total bullshit. During the Tet Offensive in 1968 we essentially wiped out the entire Vietcong Army. I wouldn't exactly call that getting our asses kicked if you want to crunch numbers and look at casualty rates on both sides. The fact that we threw superior firepower at them for 16 years and they managed to outlast us tells a lot more about the human spirit than a mere 10 second speech on asskicking can demonstrate, and it shouldn't have been dumbed down.
In every war there are atrocities committed by both sides and it appeared that Oliver Stone was attempting to create something similar to the My Lai Massacre with that aforementioned village scene. Good for him, but I have a few problems with that. The amount of U.S. Soldiers that engaged in that kind of behavior was definitely the minority, so if Oliver Stone was attempting to create a movie about average soldiers, why would he put in a scene of that nature? Merely for shock value, that’s why. Granted, the men who were involved with that incident were probably just average soldiers who snapped, and what they did definitely wasn't right, but if Oliver Stone wanted to make a movie that just focused on war atrocities (though one could argue that the whole war itself was an atrocity committed by The United States) then he should have made a movie specifically about those types of things. Oliver Stone took the entire war and meshed all those different kinds of incidents into one whole movie and marketed it as an example of how every single Vietnam Vet's experience was.
I personally think that the day to day struggles of the average combat soldier and the guys that went bezerk and killed innocent civilians are two separate stories that should be told that way. There is a lot to learn from everything that happened in Vietnam, but putting everything in a 2 hour blender and passing it off as “the real Vietnam” is just shortsighted and irresponsible.
Platoon ultimately makes Vietnam Vets look like heartless barbarians (which is pretty popular to do, when was the last time you saw World War II vets portrayed as animals?) and as a fellow Vietnam Vet, Stone should have been more responsible in how he portrayed the good men. I'm sure one of the points he was making could have been the fact that in every single
Platoon there were good and bad men but he didn't even really make that obvious to the average moviegoer. He showed one side of it, and thats the side that is supposed to represent the majority, according to his film.
When people see a movie about a topic like Vietnam, they will just assume it is real because most people haven't done a single shred of research regarding what went on over there and that is why I think
Platoon is hailed as the masterpiece it is. I’m sure there were people leaving the movie theater after seeing
Platoon saying to themselves “wow, every soldier must have had to deal with that kind of thing.” It's not even remotely true. My hometown had a lot of Vietnam vets and I have definitely talked to combat soldiers who didn’t burn any villages down or rape young Vietnames e children (as stones village scene depicts.) Not every war story has to be about heroic Americans who defeat evildoers, but if you’re going to tell a story about that kind of subject matter, tell it right, and be specific.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to sound like a nationalist. I don't think we should have been over there in the first place, but I do think we owe a certain amount of respect to a lot of the guys who got sucked into going over there. So many of them were drafted against their will and when they came home they were treated like garbage as a result of the mainstream media turning on the war and Americans being completely ignorant in general. People like John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara should have been the ones getting spit on, not the guys who were sent there by our government officials. There are those who will continue to watch
Platoon for entertainment purposes, and taken with a grain of salt, it can be an entertaining two hours especially the part where Charlie Sheen and Tom Berenger duke it out, but if you actually think it is a true to life representation of how the average combat soldier interacted with that environment then you really have to be careful regarding which parts you take seriously.